A little-known provision tucked into a House-approved bill supporting former President Donald Trump’s policy agenda could dramatically weaken federal courts’ ability to enforce rulings against the executive branch. Legal experts warn that this measure would strip judges of the power to hold government officials in contempt unless plaintiffs post bonds—potentially worth billions or even trillions—when seeking injunctions.
For decades, federal courts have routinely waived such bonds in cases against the government, particularly when plaintiffs challenge policies on constitutional or civil rights grounds. However, the new language mirrors a directive Trump signed earlier this year instructing the Justice Department to seek bonds in every case where a judge blocks one of his policies. Without the ability to enforce orders through contempt charges, courts could be left powerless, and the administration might ignore unfavorable rulings.
“This provision would make it practically impossible for everyday people and nonprofits to hold the government accountable in court,” said Eric Kashdan of the Campaign Legal Center. “It’s a direct assault on the checks and balances that define our democracy.”
Several judges have already ruled against Trump’s initiatives—such as the freezing of federal grants and deportation orders—but under the proposed change, even these rulings could be disregarded if no bond was posted. Critics argue this undermines judicial independence and shifts power dangerously toward the executive.
Republican lawmakers like Rep. Mike Flood, who voted for the bill, later admitted they were unaware of the provision and do not support it. Others, including Sen. Joni Ernst, have pledged to oppose it in the Senate, asserting that the provision does not meet the criteria for inclusion in budget legislation.
As the legislation heads to the Senate, legal scholars and civic groups are sounding the alarm, urging lawmakers to preserve the judiciary’s authority to check executive overreach and uphold the rule of law.